Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This communication is response to the application filed 7/18/2025 havingclaims 1-20 pending and presented for examination.
Priority
2. Application filed on 4/14/2023 is a has PRO 63/331,530 04/15/2022 are acknowledged.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 4/14/2023 and these drawings are accepted.
4. Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub US 20230140034 A1 to Bui et al (hereinafter Bui).further view of US PG Pub US 20230125133 A1 to Dreiling et al (hereinafter Dreiling).
As per claim 16, Bui teaches a system for cellular communications, the system comprising: domains making up a radio access network (RAN), physical network functions (PNFs) (para 0108, fig.9, domains making up a radio access network (RAN), physical network functions), and containerized application clusters created using a containerized application, whereby the RAN comprises a core on a public network and DUs on different clusters in a private network (para 0142] fig. 15, the RAN comprises a core on a public network and DUs on different clusters in a private network ); and
Dreiling teaches implementing a single collection module that collects data from all of the domains and centralizes the data in a single location on the public network (para 0071 ], 6A, server implements a collection process in which collects data from all of the domains and centralizes the data in a single location on the public network).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the combination system of Bui implementing a single collection module that collects data from all of the domains and centralizes the data in a single location on the public network as suggested by Dreiling, this modification would benefit Bui for enabling a data handling mechanism in a mobile communication network system by reducing resources.
As per claim 17, Bui, Dreiling teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the single collection module is disposed between the domains and storage components (para 0142], the single collection module is disposed between the domains and storage components).
As per claim 18, Bui, Dreiling teaches the system of claim 16, further comprising a observability layer that is configured to collect data from the domains (para 0142], observability layer that is configured to collect data from the domains).
As per claim 19, Bui, Dreiling teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the single collection module comprises a observability layer that is configured to collect data from the domains (para 0142], observability layer that is configured to collect data from the domains).
As per claim 20, Bui, Dreiling teaches the system of claim 16, further comprising a data streaming bus to stream data received from the domains to data storage (para 0142], data streaming bus to stream data received from the domains to data storage).
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of applicant’s argument regarding claim 16, applicant argues that, “Therefore, Dreiling fails to describe or suggest "a server implementing a single collection module that collects data from all of the domains and centralizes the data in a single location on the public network," as recited in independent claim 1. And Bui does not appear to cure this deficiency. For this additional reason, independent claim 1 is novel and non- obvious over Bui in view of Dreiling. For at least the reasons discussed above, independent claim 1 is allowable over the combination of Bui and Dreiling. Moreover, the Austin reference, whether alone or in combination with Bui and Dreiling, does not appear to cure the deficiencies of Bui and Dreiling, and the Examiner has not alleged that it does so. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over the cited references. Additionally, independent claims 10 and 16 are allowable for at least similar reasons as posited herein for independent claim 1”. Claims 1 is allowed. Dreiling in para 0051, 0071 fig. 1, 6A, teaches a network 132 in which a server inventory management server collects data from all domains a single collection module that collects data regarding the inventory of the domain including SIM and corresponding IMEI information from all of the domains and centralizes the data in a single location on the public network 132.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 10 are allowed.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record, not relied upon: US Patent Publication US 20220222034 A1; US Patent Publication US 20220272510 A1, US Patent Publication US 20220231948 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented inthis Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEZ EBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7153. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM to 5 PM If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on (571) 272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANEZ C EBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights